ArticleJournal of economic entomology2026
Assessing pesticide compatibility with entomopathogenic fungi for biological control: evidence from in vivo and in vitro assays.
Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integrating entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) into crop protection programs requires ensuring their compatibility with insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides to enable simultaneous applications and reduce operational costs. Compatibility is typically assessed by incorporating pesticides into growth media and measuring toxicity through germination, growth, and sporulation (Biological Index). However, field applications mainly expose conidia directly to pesticides, potentially leading to mismatches between laboratory and real-world outcomes. Here, we evaluated the compatibility of 5 fungicides (copper oxychloride, fosetyl + proamocarb, potassium phosphonate, difenoconazole, and fluopyram + tebuconazole) and 4 herbicides (diflufenican, oxyfluorfen, MCPA, and glyphosate) with 2 virulent EPF strains (Metarhizium brunneum and Beauveria bassiana) selected for efficacy against olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae), comparing the conventional medium-amendment approach (MAA) with a direct conidial-pesticide mixture method (CPM), and relating both to in vivo biological activity. For M. brunneum, only one of 4 herbicides was compatible using MAA, whereas CPM classified all 4 as compatible. Of the 5 fungicides, MAA classified 3 as compatible and 2 as toxic, while CPM classified 3 as compatible and 2 as moderately toxic. In vivo bioassays using adults of the tephritid model Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) indicated that CPM results aligned more closely with observed efficacy. B. bassiana showed similar results, with lower virulence and fungicide compatibility, and CPM again better reflecting in vivo biological activity. Overall, results suggest that CPM may provide a more realistic approach than MAA for assessing EPF compatibility with agrochemicals and could facilitate EPF integration into crop protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.